This seems more about Neotarf's personal ban more than anything else. Looking at the arbcom findings of fact (which I won't quote here), it doesn't look like the ban was related to the gender gap on Wikipedia as much as behaviour displayed towards other editors.
Maybe it would be better for the mailing list if we stopped talking about this? Just a suggestion.
On 15 Jul 2017 8:20 PM, "Nathan" nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
I believe because the ArbCom case regards the 'Gender Gap Task Force'
On Sat, Jul 15, 2017 at 7:24 PM, JJ Marr jjmarr@gmail.com wrote:
How does this relate to the gender gap on Wikimedia again?
On 15 Jul 2017 6:00 PM, "Neotarf" neotarf@gmail.com wrote:
Just to follow up, the WMF has now responded. I appreciate them taking time to review these concerns.
your best course of action is to discuss the PII situation with WMF
Legal.
Been and done, also involvement from C-levels, although that was some time ago
a few other remedies which could come into play, but they would almost
certainly take longer and be more politically problematic than a minimal intervention
If this is necessary, we should not shrink from it. If this can happen to me, it can happen to anyone -- your students, your employees, or someone like Bassel Khartabil. The arbitrators should not be using dox as a tool to silence voices for diversity or as an arbitration outcome.
The foundation lost social capital during the media viewer/visual editor/flow controversies, because the community went to a great deal of effort to document the problems with those products, and was not listened to. But that was a long time ago, and the community has now lost the high ground, largely because of the gender issue. 640 people voted in the 2014 arbcom election, but after this GGTF case, 2674 people voted in the 2015 election. Is there any doubt that the arbcom is out of touch with the community, and that the community process is failing? The arbitration committee was not established by the community, it was established by Jimmy Wales. Is there any doubt the foundation has the capability and the resources to step in and protect the long term interests of the movement if the arbcom and the community process can not?
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 8:03 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Unfortunately I don't think there is much more I can do here. Based on what you wrote, I think that your best course of action is to discuss the PII situation with WMF Legal. There are a few other remedies which could come into play, but they would almost certainly take longer and be more politically problematic than a minimal intervention in which WMF Legal clarifies to the Ombuds and Arbcom what is required under WMF's interpretation of its privacy policy.
Pine
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 3:49 PM, Neotarf neotarf@gmail.com wrote:
The privacy policy as written certainly leads users to expect their PII is safe. There is nothing I can find in the written policy that would back the idea that the ombuds should refuse to remove PII if they think it might have been posted in good faith. If it could be used to identify someone, it should just be removed. That's just basic safety. Maybe they are not allowed to go against arbitrators I also don't understand why arbitrators would insist on posting PII over and over. We have seen too much what that can lead to. In all fairness, the gamergate sub-reddit was very professional and removed the dox within an hour of my request.
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 5:56 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Hmm. I'd like to take a closer look at this, but unfortunately I'm already backlogged with other projects. I wish I knew what to suggest here. If you have already been to the Ombudsman Commission and you disagree with their interpretation of WMF policies, then you might try to contact WMF Legal, although I don't know to what extent they will want to involve themselves.
For what it's worth, if I had my way the OC would (1) have significantly more independence from the WMF Board and staff and (2) be issuing monthly or quarterly reports about its activities, but realistically the current setup is likely to continue for the foreseeable future.
Pine
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Hi JJ, I can't speak for anyone else, but I was responding specifically to the statement "four arbitrators posted personally identifying information about me and did not respond to my requests to remove it.", which would be a concern to me both in regards to the specific case and also the broader implications for privacy.
Neotarf, if WMF Legal has reviewed the PII concerns, including escalating them to C-level, and has chosen not to get involved, I'm afraid that you're probably out of luck unless a change of policy happens on ENWP or with the relevant WMF policies. You could lobby for a change, and you might get it, although that is a long road to travel. My mental bandwidth is too constrained to continue personal involvement in this discussion at this time, but I don't want to discourage you from requesting a change in policy if you think that would be good. You may wish to conserve your energy by first dealing with your ban appeal; I have not reviewed the evidence in your case and I will refrain from speculating on the merits of the appeal. After that appeal is resolved, if there is a favorable outcome, you may find it easier to propose one or more changes to policies. Good luck.
Pine
JJ Marr, I hate to be the one who walks into a conversation late and asks "What are you talking about?" —especially since you're going to stop talking about it now, but... I searched all through the archives of this list in my mail, but so far am none the wiser...
On Sat, Jul 15, 2017 at 10:10 PM, JJ Marr jjmarr@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe it would be better for the mailing list if we stopped talking about this? Just a suggestion.
I doubt very much whether anyone who has been paying attention to this thread still thinks it's about me. The problems with arbcom have been very public since at least the 2015 Wikiconference USA. [1] But JJ Marr does have a point. The Arbcom does label this a "finding of fact", although the WMF is probably more likely to regard it as a 'poorly written personal opinion' of the arbitrators who signed their names to it, at least from a legal standpoint. But the arbitration committee does not have any standard for "fact", as WP does with BLP. The arbitration committee, with a few exceptions, is mostly very young and inexperienced with life and work, and has no training at all with arbitration or dispute resolution. The only tool they are given as part of their remit to resolve disputes is to publicly humiliate and embarrass volunteers who have given their time to the project.
The result is that anyone who has ever objected to harassment on Wikipedia has been driven off, either by arbitration or by doxing.
One of the problems is this non-consensual sodomy thing that's making the rounds. This kind of talk is very normalized in some areas of Wikipedia, for instance in the back rooms of the Signpost when I was there it was a standing joke. It's one thing though if consenting adult men are using Wikipedia to hook up with each other, but the problem is that older men are telling younger men that this is the way to impress women, and the younger men believe them, they just don't know.
Women who do not want to interact on these terms, with individuals who are quite probably minors, are being silenced. I have heard that professional women are being recruited for Wikipedia, women whose employers would ordinarily be expected to protect them from a 'hostile work place', but they are being required to post their real identities on their talk pages, along with the names of their employers. and a COI form statement. They are also required to sign a non-disclosure agreement that prevents them from revealing any harassment they experience in Wikipedia, or from even revealing they have been required to sign an NDA. These women will join Wikipedia, and listen to the pitch and eat the bagels, and Wikipedia gets to count them as female editors, but very few of them go on to make that second edit, because it's their professional reputation on the line.
If Wikipedia wants women editors they are going to have to come to terms with this.
[1] https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Danielle_Citron_speaks_at_WikiConference_USA_...
On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 11:02 PM, Johanna-Hypatia Cybeleia < johanna.hypatia@gmail.com> wrote:
JJ Marr, I hate to be the one who walks into a conversation late and asks "What are you talking about?" —especially since you're going to stop talking about it now, but... I searched all through the archives of this list in my mail, but so far am none the wiser...
On Sat, Jul 15, 2017 at 10:10 PM, JJ Marr jjmarr@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe it would be better for the mailing list if we stopped talking about this? Just a suggestion.
-- __________________________________ I have been woman for a long time beware my smile
--Audre Lorde
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
When you say professionals, in what specific capacity are they being recruited? Who is requiring them to sign an NDA? The Foundation? Their employers? I've worked with a number of Wikipedians in Residence and professionals at US cultural institutions, and I know some of them well enough to feel confident that I'd know of such a thing if they were forced to sign something like this. (Many people working with the private data of editors are required by the Foundation to sign a confidentiality agreement, but that agreement only extends to that data. I've signed it myself. I believe a copy of this agreement is publicly available somewhere. Meta?)
If this NDA requirement is true it deserves to be publicly exposed in the interests of transparency. If it's not true, it's a distraction from the real problems that exist in this community and enables those opposed to eliminating those problems to point to false claims in an attempt to dismiss attention towards those problems.
If anyone has one of these NDAs, please send it to me privately, anonymously if you wish, and I will take the appropriate steps to expose them.
On Sun, Aug 6, 2017 at 11:08 PM, Neotarf neotarf@gmail.com wrote:
I have heard that professional women are being recruited for Wikipedia, women whose employers would ordinarily be expected to protect them from a 'hostile work place', but they are being required to post their real identities on their talk pages, along with the names of their employers. and a COI form statement. They are also required to sign a non-disclosure agreement that prevents them from revealing any harassment they experience in Wikipedia, or from even revealing they have been required to sign an NDA.
On 6 August 2017 at 23:08, Neotarf neotarf@gmail.com wrote:
......
Women who do not want to interact on these terms, with individuals who are quite probably minors, are being silenced. I have heard that professional women are being recruited for Wikipedia, women whose employers would ordinarily be expected to protect them from a 'hostile work place', but they are being required to post their real identities on their talk pages, along with the names of their employers. and a COI form statement. They are also required to sign a non-disclosure agreement that prevents them from revealing any harassment they experience in Wikipedia, or from even revealing they have been required to sign an NDA. These women will join Wikipedia, and listen to the pitch and eat the bagels, and Wikipedia gets to count them as female editors, but very few of them go on to make that second edit, because it's their professional reputation on the line.
If Wikipedia wants women editors they are going to have to come to terms with this.
This is a very inflammatory thing to say, Neotarf, and I need to insist that you show some proof of this. Links to discussions or requirements, please. This is far too sensationalistic to allow it to sit here without serious evidence.
Risker/Anne
I have no way of investigating something I was not supposed to find out about in the first place. Given Wikipedia's culture of retaliation against anyone who speaks out, I am unlikely to find out more, but it did seem credible. These agreements are becoming more common, for instance here a female employee wanted to get out of her non-disparagement agreement but Angel List said no. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/21/technology/silicon-valley-sexual-harassme... Also the internal Google gender manifesto that was just leaked "Until about a week ago, you would have heard very little from me publicly about this, because (as a fairly senior Googler) my job would have been to deal with it internally, and confidentiality rules would have prevented me from saying much in public.But as it happens, (although this wasn’t the way I was planning on announcing it) I actually recently left Google..." https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/so-about-this-googlers-manifesto-1e3773ed1...
On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 3:16 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
On 6 August 2017 at 23:08, Neotarf neotarf@gmail.com wrote:
......
Women who do not want to interact on these terms, with individuals who are quite probably minors, are being silenced. I have heard that professional women are being recruited for Wikipedia, women whose employers would ordinarily be expected to protect them from a 'hostile work place', but they are being required to post their real identities on their talk pages, along with the names of their employers. and a COI form statement. They are also required to sign a non-disclosure agreement that prevents them from revealing any harassment they experience in Wikipedia, or from even revealing they have been required to sign an NDA. These women will join Wikipedia, and listen to the pitch and eat the bagels, and Wikipedia gets to count them as female editors, but very few of them go on to make that second edit, because it's their professional reputation on the line.
If Wikipedia wants women editors they are going to have to come to terms with this.
This is a very inflammatory thing to say, Neotarf, and I need to insist that you show some proof of this. Links to discussions or requirements, please. This is far too sensationalistic to allow it to sit here without serious evidence.
Risker/Anne
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
So, in other words, you have no evidence at all, except for some gossip, that *anyone* is being required to sign NDAs in order to edit Wikipedia. You have some information that suggests other organizations, completely separate from Wikipedia,
It's bad enough that women do, indeed, face greater sexual harassment both societally and on Wikimedia projects, something that is quantified in various ways even if there is some question about the accuracy of that quantification. Sesnsationalistic statements such as yours, without any evidence at all, have a very significant negative impact on the ability to fight such harassment, especially when they seem so absurd. Simply put, it's factless allegation, or what certain sectors of the American public have come to term "fake news". Please retract your statement.
Risker/Anne
On 7 August 2017 at 08:21, Neotarf neotarf@gmail.com wrote:
I have no way of investigating something I was not supposed to find out about in the first place. Given Wikipedia's culture of retaliation against anyone who speaks out, I am unlikely to find out more, but it did seem credible. These agreements are becoming more common, for instance here a female employee wanted to get out of her non-disparagement agreement but Angel List said no. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/21/technology/silicon- valley-sexual-harassment-non-disparagement-agreements.html Also the internal Google gender manifesto that was just leaked "Until about a week ago, you would have heard very little from me publicly about this, because (as a fairly senior Googler) my job would have been to deal with it internally, and confidentiality rules would have prevented me from saying much in public.But as it happens, (although this wasn’t the way I was planning on announcing it) I actually recently left Google..." https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/so-about-this-googlers-manifesto- 1e3773ed1788
On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 3:16 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
On 6 August 2017 at 23:08, Neotarf neotarf@gmail.com wrote:
......
Women who do not want to interact on these terms, with individuals who are quite probably minors, are being silenced. I have heard that professional women are being recruited for Wikipedia, women whose employers would ordinarily be expected to protect them from a 'hostile work place', but they are being required to post their real identities on their talk pages, along with the names of their employers. and a COI form statement. They are also required to sign a non-disclosure agreement that prevents them from revealing any harassment they experience in Wikipedia, or from even revealing they have been required to sign an NDA. These women will join Wikipedia, and listen to the pitch and eat the bagels, and Wikipedia gets to count them as female editors, but very few of them go on to make that second edit, because it's their professional reputation on the line.
If Wikipedia wants women editors they are going to have to come to terms with this.
This is a very inflammatory thing to say, Neotarf, and I need to insist that you show some proof of this. Links to discussions or requirements, please. This is far too sensationalistic to allow it to sit here without serious evidence.
Risker/Anne
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
So we have two former arbitrators on this list, one of whom has offered to assist in evaluating this thing privately, and who has himself signed such a non-disparagement agreement, and another who wants to suppress all discussion of it. We don't know if she has signed such an agreement.
Publications like the New York Times and Washington Post do print and evaluate information without naming sources, and it is true they are sometimes called "fake news" on Twitter, but does not make the information "factless", or prevent Wikipedia from consider them to be RS.
On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 10:14 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
So, in other words, you have no evidence at all, except for some gossip, that *anyone* is being required to sign NDAs in order to edit Wikipedia. You have some information that suggests other organizations, completely separate from Wikipedia,
It's bad enough that women do, indeed, face greater sexual harassment both societally and on Wikimedia projects, something that is quantified in various ways even if there is some question about the accuracy of that quantification. Sesnsationalistic statements such as yours, without any evidence at all, have a very significant negative impact on the ability to fight such harassment, especially when they seem so absurd. Simply put, it's factless allegation, or what certain sectors of the American public have come to term "fake news". Please retract your statement.
Risker/Anne
On 7 August 2017 at 08:21, Neotarf neotarf@gmail.com wrote:
I have no way of investigating something I was not supposed to find out about in the first place. Given Wikipedia's culture of retaliation against anyone who speaks out, I am unlikely to find out more, but it did seem credible. These agreements are becoming more common, for instance here a female employee wanted to get out of her non-disparagement agreement but Angel List said no. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0 7/21/technology/silicon-valley-sexual-harassment-non-dispara gement-agreements.html Also the internal Google gender manifesto that was just leaked "Until about a week ago, you would have heard very little from me publicly about this, because (as a fairly senior Googler) my job would have been to deal with it internally, and confidentiality rules would have prevented me from saying much in public.But as it happens, (although this wasn’t the way I was planning on announcing it) I actually recently left Google..." https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/so-about-this-googlers- manifesto-1e3773ed1788
On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 3:16 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
On 6 August 2017 at 23:08, Neotarf neotarf@gmail.com wrote:
......
Women who do not want to interact on these terms, with individuals who are quite probably minors, are being silenced. I have heard that professional women are being recruited for Wikipedia, women whose employers would ordinarily be expected to protect them from a 'hostile work place', but they are being required to post their real identities on their talk pages, along with the names of their employers. and a COI form statement. They are also required to sign a non-disclosure agreement that prevents them from revealing any harassment they experience in Wikipedia, or from even revealing they have been required to sign an NDA. These women will join Wikipedia, and listen to the pitch and eat the bagels, and Wikipedia gets to count them as female editors, but very few of them go on to make that second edit, because it's their professional reputation on the line.
If Wikipedia wants women editors they are going to have to come to terms with this.
This is a very inflammatory thing to say, Neotarf, and I need to insist that you show some proof of this. Links to discussions or requirements, please. This is far too sensationalistic to allow it to sit here without serious evidence.
Risker/Anne
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
You're mistaken, Neotarf. There is no non-disparagement agreement, and arbitrators have never been required to sign one or even offered the opportunity to sign one, nor have functionaries or anyone else. There is a* confidentiality* agreement that refers to private and confidential information, which volunteers who have access to such information are required to sign.[1] These are two very different things. I am not suggesting that discussion be suppressed - I am insisting that you "show us the money" - give us some evidence that what you are saying is true. If you can't do that....then you're just gossiping, and that's not what this list is about.
You are trying to persuade this list that articles in respected journals about policies of companies that have nothing to do with Wikipedia or Wikimedia are somehow or other related to some rumour you have heard that women are being forced to sign non-whatever agreements in order to edit Wikipedia - a rumour which you have bluntly refused to back up.
At this stage, your allegation that anyone is required to post their real name, identify their COI, and sign non-disparagement agreements in order to edit wikipedia is...well, factless, until you can show us some facts.
Risker/Anne
[1] List of people who have current and valid confidentiality agreements: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Access_to_nonpublic_information_policy/Notic...
On 7 August 2017 at 14:11, Neotarf neotarf@gmail.com wrote:
So we have two former arbitrators on this list, one of whom has offered to assist in evaluating this thing privately, and who has himself signed such a non-disparagement agreement, and another who wants to suppress all discussion of it. We don't know if she has signed such an agreement.
Publications like the New York Times and Washington Post do print and evaluate information without naming sources, and it is true they are sometimes called "fake news" on Twitter, but does not make the information "factless", or prevent Wikipedia from consider them to be RS.
On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 10:14 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
So, in other words, you have no evidence at all, except for some gossip, that *anyone* is being required to sign NDAs in order to edit Wikipedia. You have some information that suggests other organizations, completely separate from Wikipedia,
It's bad enough that women do, indeed, face greater sexual harassment both societally and on Wikimedia projects, something that is quantified in various ways even if there is some question about the accuracy of that quantification. Sesnsationalistic statements such as yours, without any evidence at all, have a very significant negative impact on the ability to fight such harassment, especially when they seem so absurd. Simply put, it's factless allegation, or what certain sectors of the American public have come to term "fake news". Please retract your statement.
Risker/Anne
On 7 August 2017 at 08:21, Neotarf neotarf@gmail.com wrote:
I have no way of investigating something I was not supposed to find out about in the first place. Given Wikipedia's culture of retaliation against anyone who speaks out, I am unlikely to find out more, but it did seem credible. These agreements are becoming more common, for instance here a female employee wanted to get out of her non-disparagement agreement but Angel List said no. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0 7/21/technology/silicon-valley-sexual-harassment-non-dispara gement-agreements.html Also the internal Google gender manifesto that was just leaked "Until about a week ago, you would have heard very little from me publicly about this, because (as a fairly senior Googler) my job would have been to deal with it internally, and confidentiality rules would have prevented me from saying much in public.But as it happens, (although this wasn’t the way I was planning on announcing it) I actually recently left Google..." https://medium.com/@yonatanzun ger/so-about-this-googlers-manifesto-1e3773ed1788
On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 3:16 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
On 6 August 2017 at 23:08, Neotarf neotarf@gmail.com wrote:
......
Women who do not want to interact on these terms, with individuals who are quite probably minors, are being silenced. I have heard that professional women are being recruited for Wikipedia, women whose employers would ordinarily be expected to protect them from a 'hostile work place', but they are being required to post their real identities on their talk pages, along with the names of their employers. and a COI form statement. They are also required to sign a non-disclosure agreement that prevents them from revealing any harassment they experience in Wikipedia, or from even revealing they have been required to sign an NDA. These women will join Wikipedia, and listen to the pitch and eat the bagels, and Wikipedia gets to count them as female editors, but very few of them go on to make that second edit, because it's their professional reputation on the line.
If Wikipedia wants women editors they are going to have to come to terms with this.
This is a very inflammatory thing to say, Neotarf, and I need to insist that you show some proof of this. Links to discussions or requirements, please. This is far too sensationalistic to allow it to sit here without serious evidence.
Risker/Anne
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
No, that's exactly the opposite of what was said. I did not say I signed a non-disparagement agreement. I said I signed the standard WMF confidentiality agreement.
You can read it here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Confidentiality_ agreement_for_nonpublic_information/ Everyone signs it for even mundane things. I first signed it when I processed free database accounts for The Wikipedia Library and had access to names and email addresses of editors.
You can see there's nothing in it about non-disparagement. I feel quite free to disparage any person or institution that I choose.
Given that you are unable to distinguish between a routine confidentiality agreement and a non-disparagement agreement, or between normal criticism and the suppression of discussion, I'm pretty confident that these alleged NPAs have never existed.
The idea that Risker "wants to suppress all discussion" of these alleged NPAs is nonsense. She merely pointed out, quite correctly, that spreading baseless allegations is quite damaging to the very causes you profess to care about. Please consider that before you continue to double down on a baseless allegation. There are plenty of legitimate criticisms to level at the Foundation and this community for ineptness and inaction in these areas without making things up.
On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 2:11 PM, Neotarf neotarf@gmail.com wrote:
So we have two former arbitrators on this list, one of whom has offered to assist in evaluating this thing privately, and who has himself signed such a non-disparagement agreement, and another who wants to suppress all discussion of it. We don't know if she has signed such an agreement.
Publications like the New York Times and Washington Post do print and evaluate information without naming sources, and it is true they are sometimes called "fake news" on Twitter, but does not make the information "factless", or prevent Wikipedia from consider them to be RS.
On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 10:14 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
So, in other words, you have no evidence at all, except for some gossip, that *anyone* is being required to sign NDAs in order to edit Wikipedia. You have some information that suggests other organizations, completely separate from Wikipedia,
It's bad enough that women do, indeed, face greater sexual harassment both societally and on Wikimedia projects, something that is quantified in various ways even if there is some question about the accuracy of that quantification. Sesnsationalistic statements such as yours, without any evidence at all, have a very significant negative impact on the ability to fight such harassment, especially when they seem so absurd. Simply put, it's factless allegation, or what certain sectors of the American public have come to term "fake news". Please retract your statement.
Risker/Anne
On 7 August 2017 at 08:21, Neotarf neotarf@gmail.com wrote:
I have no way of investigating something I was not supposed to find out about in the first place. Given Wikipedia's culture of retaliation against anyone who speaks out, I am unlikely to find out more, but it did seem credible. These agreements are becoming more common, for instance here a female employee wanted to get out of her non-disparagement agreement but Angel List said no. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0 7/21/technology/silicon-valley-sexual-harassment-non-dispara gement-agreements.html Also the internal Google gender manifesto that was just leaked "Until about a week ago, you would have heard very little from me publicly about this, because (as a fairly senior Googler) my job would have been to deal with it internally, and confidentiality rules would have prevented me from saying much in public.But as it happens, (although this wasn’t the way I was planning on announcing it) I actually recently left Google..." https://medium.com/@yonatanzun ger/so-about-this-googlers-manifesto-1e3773ed1788
On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 3:16 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
On 6 August 2017 at 23:08, Neotarf neotarf@gmail.com wrote:
......
Women who do not want to interact on these terms, with individuals who are quite probably minors, are being silenced. I have heard that professional women are being recruited for Wikipedia, women whose employers would ordinarily be expected to protect them from a 'hostile work place', but they are being required to post their real identities on their talk pages, along with the names of their employers. and a COI form statement. They are also required to sign a non-disclosure agreement that prevents them from revealing any harassment they experience in Wikipedia, or from even revealing they have been required to sign an NDA. These women will join Wikipedia, and listen to the pitch and eat the bagels, and Wikipedia gets to count them as female editors, but very few of them go on to make that second edit, because it's their professional reputation on the line.
If Wikipedia wants women editors they are going to have to come to terms with this.
This is a very inflammatory thing to say, Neotarf, and I need to insist that you show some proof of this. Links to discussions or requirements, please. This is far too sensationalistic to allow it to sit here without serious evidence.
Risker/Anne
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
There is some association with a private GLAM mailing list. I could not find out more, and I cannot give more details without risk of exposing someone's identity. No idea if it is a NDA, NCA or NPA or something else, even a misunderstanding, you know how people can be, but why would something be secret if it does not exist? If you know people in these institutions maybe you can count for yourself how many of them are anonymous and how many list their employers on their talk page, and if there is some uniformity, how that might have come to be. I am unable to go further with this issue, but as they say, first do no harm, my loyalty will be to protecting the careers and reputations of real people, I do believe this should be the best interest of the WMF as well. It is sad that when there can be no public discussions of these issues without reprisals, only the private channels remain.
On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 2:59 PM, Robert Fernandez wikigamaliel@gmail.com wrote:
No, that's exactly the opposite of what was said. I did not say I signed a non-disparagement agreement. I said I signed the standard WMF confidentiality agreement.
You can read it here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik i/Confidentiality_agreement_for_nonpublic_information/ Everyone signs it for even mundane things. I first signed it when I processed free database accounts for The Wikipedia Library and had access to names and email addresses of editors.
You can see there's nothing in it about non-disparagement. I feel quite free to disparage any person or institution that I choose.
Given that you are unable to distinguish between a routine confidentiality agreement and a non-disparagement agreement, or between normal criticism and the suppression of discussion, I'm pretty confident that these alleged NPAs have never existed.
The idea that Risker "wants to suppress all discussion" of these alleged NPAs is nonsense. She merely pointed out, quite correctly, that spreading baseless allegations is quite damaging to the very causes you profess to care about. Please consider that before you continue to double down on a baseless allegation. There are plenty of legitimate criticisms to level at the Foundation and this community for ineptness and inaction in these areas without making things up.
On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 2:11 PM, Neotarf neotarf@gmail.com wrote:
So we have two former arbitrators on this list, one of whom has offered to assist in evaluating this thing privately, and who has himself signed such a non-disparagement agreement, and another who wants to suppress all discussion of it. We don't know if she has signed such an agreement.
Publications like the New York Times and Washington Post do print and evaluate information without naming sources, and it is true they are sometimes called "fake news" on Twitter, but does not make the information "factless", or prevent Wikipedia from consider them to be RS.
On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 10:14 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
So, in other words, you have no evidence at all, except for some gossip, that *anyone* is being required to sign NDAs in order to edit Wikipedia. You have some information that suggests other organizations, completely separate from Wikipedia,
It's bad enough that women do, indeed, face greater sexual harassment both societally and on Wikimedia projects, something that is quantified in various ways even if there is some question about the accuracy of that quantification. Sesnsationalistic statements such as yours, without any evidence at all, have a very significant negative impact on the ability to fight such harassment, especially when they seem so absurd. Simply put, it's factless allegation, or what certain sectors of the American public have come to term "fake news". Please retract your statement.
Risker/Anne
On 7 August 2017 at 08:21, Neotarf neotarf@gmail.com wrote:
I have no way of investigating something I was not supposed to find out about in the first place. Given Wikipedia's culture of retaliation against anyone who speaks out, I am unlikely to find out more, but it did seem credible. These agreements are becoming more common, for instance here a female employee wanted to get out of her non-disparagement agreement but Angel List said no. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0 7/21/technology/silicon-valley-sexual-harassment-non-dispara gement-agreements.html Also the internal Google gender manifesto that was just leaked "Until about a week ago, you would have heard very little from me publicly about this, because (as a fairly senior Googler) my job would have been to deal with it internally, and confidentiality rules would have prevented me from saying much in public.But as it happens, (although this wasn’t the way I was planning on announcing it) I actually recently left Google..." https://medium.com/@yonatanzun ger/so-about-this-googlers-manifesto-1e3773ed1788
On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 3:16 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
On 6 August 2017 at 23:08, Neotarf neotarf@gmail.com wrote:
......
Women who do not want to interact on these terms, with individuals who are quite probably minors, are being silenced. I have heard that professional women are being recruited for Wikipedia, women whose employers would ordinarily be expected to protect them from a 'hostile work place', but they are being required to post their real identities on their talk pages, along with the names of their employers. and a COI form statement. They are also required to sign a non-disclosure agreement that prevents them from revealing any harassment they experience in Wikipedia, or from even revealing they have been required to sign an NDA. These women will join Wikipedia, and listen to the pitch and eat the bagels, and Wikipedia gets to count them as female editors, but very few of them go on to make that second edit, because it's their professional reputation on the line.
If Wikipedia wants women editors they are going to have to come to terms with this.
This is a very inflammatory thing to say, Neotarf, and I need to insist that you show some proof of this. Links to discussions or requirements, please. This is far too sensationalistic to allow it to sit here without serious evidence.
Risker/Anne
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap